Thank you for this article. I don't fault Gene Munster for having his estimates wrong. I do fault him for trying to blame others for his poor estimate this year. Apple is not an easy company to analyze and this was a unique year with 2 new iPhone models being released along with the prior year model being retired. It was also difficult with the 5c going on sale a week earlier online yet the flagship 5s not going on sale until online until launch weekend. But Mr. Munster knew all of this and it should have been part of his estimate. He just "guessed" wrong. Something he has done too much lately.
Another HUGE miss for Mr. Munster was the day of the iPhone event when he said there was a 99% chance of a China Mobile announcement at the Beijing iPhone event. That did not happen either. Statements like this from Mr. Munster only add to the volatility of Apple stock. He raised expectations for a China Mobile announcement to a high level and the stock was then punished when it did not happen. This other "miss" by Mr. Munster should be included in your article.
Gene, please admit your mistakes, apologize, learn from your errors to improve the accuracy of your reporting or simply go away. You are adding to the noise that diminishes the stock value of a quality company. I shall recall the link to this article and continue to publish this comment when I feel it is appropriate.
The only reliable analyst we've seen is Kuo, the rest can shut up.
Yes, he seems to have real sources. And the WSJ and NYT seem to get it right when they predict a day or two out from an event: once again, real sources (I suspect).
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
If you are an analyst you should shame the bad ones.
So when Munster released his 5-6 million figure was he including channel inventory? And if not, why? Apple hasn't changed the way it reports stuff. Also since we know Cook hates inventory (he once called it evil) its highly doubtful Apple would make a shitload of phones to sit on store shelves somewhere just so they could report some big launch weekend figure. Apple manufactures what it thinks it will sell.
Daniel, you wrote a big, rather triumphant article about what it meant that Samsung almost certainly did not make the A7. I'd like to hear your thoughts about the fact that they actually do.
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
You sure do sound like you must be missing something: the ability to read, for starters.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you try to draw conclusions from too little data, you will screw up. And Apple is very secretive. All you can do with Apple is watch the long terms trends, and predict in broad strokes not specifics (and based on those you would have to be very positive).
True.
These analysts are doing what they always do: making educated guesses. Anyone who treats their advice as fact should not be allowed to make their own investment decisions.
I would really like to know who is issuing better or more accurate information? No one? Anyone? Bueller?
Those 'Analysts' should be named and shamed in a blacklist! They need to take accountability about what they said. Unfortunately some investors listen and follow their crap! The Lesson learned: listen only APPLE own official numbers and do your own research and analyse. Always remember people from the wall street are not smarter than you!
Analysts should publish who pays them. Samesung is well known for funding guerilla marketing tactics.
Excellent question.
I was wondering and I am sure experts here will enlighten me.
How far can manipulators like this directly benefit from that manipulation and stay legal? Also what are the a gray areas that can be used by the Musters and Cramers of this world to so benefit from stock manipulation using their powerful soap boxes and what clear is a line they cannot cross?
Lastly, is there any legislation afoot to curb this or is it just the modern day snake oil salesman and 'let the buyer beware' rule applies?
I would have thought at the very least every article they print should carry a list of disclaimers! Just listen to the last 15 seconds of every pharmaceutical ad on television! Your testicles dropping of and going blind might be worse than losing your shirt but not by far for some.
He makes money doing this—more money than most of us—even those of us with honest, good-paying, beneficial jobs. He and his ilk are a lot like Miley Cyrus and her ilk: the only thing remarkable about them is that anyone cares. Unfortunately, enough people listen/watch/whatever to make them prodigious amounts of money. It’s marketing without substance i.e., they have no desirable product for sale (unlike teachers; real musicians; Apple Inc. etc.); but it works anyway.
It's time to give these folks a new name/moniker. They are NOT actually or truthfully "analyzing" anything, so it molests the name "analyst"* for sake of a better title.
I would like to propose, in the same vein as the now common term for those parties abusing copyright and patent law (Patent Trolls), the following:
Market Trolls
I just checked a quick Google seach to see if it's being used, and it is not. Maybe AI could start the trend?
Naturally if someone has something better, let's here it..... :smokey:
* I'm tired of using anal-cyst, and naturally that can't be in any serious headline discussing these puss-invested-provocateurs and manipulators..
Munster stated that when he heard the 9 million sales figure he almost fell out of his chair. What calls did he make in less than a day that would provide the 3.5 million iPhones surplus on store shelves. This is the same guy that watches traffic at One mall for a few hours to create estimates. Come on, let's get past this. There's no way he could scramble that fast to come up with a good number. More importantly, why does it matter. It's all sales that will hit 3rd quarter.
There's an interesting article ("Apple Can't Win") by Forbes discussing the same thing as DED's piece.
"It will be fair to judge anything less than 170 million iPhones over these next 4 quarters as an utter failure of Apple’s strategy."
...
"Tim Cook and Apple management don’t talk sales goals, but I imagine somewhere in Cupertino they’re looking at a figure that many a Hollywood blockbuster shoots for these days — 200 million."
Thank you for writing this. I am so sick of these so called analysts that try to manipulate the news to benefit their pocketbooks. They are all fools and you can add Jim Kramer into that group.
He was only off by 5 million. Twice. Let's cut him some slack. I mean he and his analyst friends did do potential stock buyers a big favor by causing Apple's stock to drop, and quite significantly at that.
I agree that saying the 5C is less profitable than the 5S may not be true as the 5C is a much improved iPhone5 but then again, this assumes that input costs remain low and given how JPM and Goldman Sachs have been overtly manipulating commodity markets of late... and given that one of the commodities in question was being manipulated by driving the material from one part of Detroit to another over and over would change the costs of one of the iPhone models.
The 5S, to me, is more iPhone 6 given the CPU alone. To me, the problem with Apple is what are they going to add to the iPhone 6 next year now that iOS7 has been revamped and these new features added?
Comments
Another HUGE miss for Mr. Munster was the day of the iPhone event when he said there was a 99% chance of a China Mobile announcement at the Beijing iPhone event. That did not happen either. Statements like this from Mr. Munster only add to the volatility of Apple stock. He raised expectations for a China Mobile announcement to a high level and the stock was then punished when it did not happen. This other "miss" by Mr. Munster should be included in your article.
Gene, please admit your mistakes, apologize, learn from your errors to improve the accuracy of your reporting or simply go away. You are adding to the noise that diminishes the stock value of a quality company. I shall recall the link to this article and continue to publish this comment when I feel it is appropriate.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-actually-only-sold-55-million-iphones-during-opening-weekend-says-gene-munster-2013-9
The only reliable analyst we've seen is Kuo, the rest can shut up.
Yes, he seems to have real sources. And the WSJ and NYT seem to get it right when they predict a day or two out from an event: once again, real sources (I suspect).
This is not journalism; this is tabloid trash.
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
If you are an analyst you should shame the bad ones.
If not, you should expose their tricks.
It is a civic behaviour.
Is that you Gene?
You sure do sound like you must be missing something: the ability to read, for starters.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you try to draw conclusions from too little data, you will screw up. And Apple is very secretive. All you can do with Apple is watch the long terms trends, and predict in broad strokes not specifics (and based on those you would have to be very positive).
True.
These analysts are doing what they always do: making educated guesses. Anyone who treats their advice as fact should not be allowed to make their own investment decisions.
I would really like to know who is issuing better or more accurate information? No one? Anyone? Bueller?
Can DED do better?
Excellent question.
I was wondering and I am sure experts here will enlighten me.
How far can manipulators like this directly benefit from that manipulation and stay legal? Also what are the a gray areas that can be used by the Musters and Cramers of this world to so benefit from stock manipulation using their powerful soap boxes and what clear is a line they cannot cross?
Lastly, is there any legislation afoot to curb this or is it just the modern day snake oil salesman and 'let the buyer beware' rule applies?
I would have thought at the very least every article they print should carry a list of disclaimers! Just listen to the last 15 seconds of every pharmaceutical ad on television! Your testicles dropping of and going blind might be worse than losing your shirt but not by far for some.
It's time to give these folks a new name/moniker. They are NOT actually or truthfully "analyzing" anything, so it molests the name "analyst"* for sake of a better title.
I would like to propose, in the same vein as the now common term for those parties abusing copyright and patent law (Patent Trolls), the following:
Market Trolls
I just checked a quick Google seach to see if it's being used, and it is not. Maybe AI could start the trend?
Naturally if someone has something better, let's here it..... :smokey:
* I'm tired of using anal-cyst, and naturally that can't be in any serious headline discussing these puss-invested-provocateurs and manipulators..
Thanks
There's an interesting article ("Apple Can't Win") by Forbes discussing the same thing as DED's piece.
"It will be fair to judge anything less than 170 million iPhones over these next 4 quarters as an utter failure of Apple’s strategy."
...
"Tim Cook and Apple management don’t talk sales goals, but I imagine somewhere in Cupertino they’re looking at a figure that many a Hollywood blockbuster shoots for these days — 200 million."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/09/25/apple-cant-win/?partner=yahootix
I much prefer this Munster.
Thank you for writing this. I am so sick of these so called analysts that try to manipulate the news to benefit their pocketbooks. They are all fools and you can add Jim Kramer into that group.
He was only off by 5 million. Twice. Let's cut him some slack. I mean he and his analyst friends did do potential stock buyers a big favor by causing Apple's stock to drop, and quite significantly at that.
/s
The 5S, to me, is more iPhone 6 given the CPU alone. To me, the problem with Apple is what are they going to add to the iPhone 6 next year now that iOS7 has been revamped and these new features added?
Only thing I can think of is wireless charging.